OffensivelyPC

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10691178/chris-culliver-san-francisco-49ers-charged-felony-hit-run Okay, so there's a couple different ways to read this. What many people seemed to have done is focus only on the words "Hit and Run," and call for Culliver's head. I'm actually of the opinion that Culliver encountered one of those types of cyclist that think they own the raod and Culliver gave into his poor judgment. I can't tell you how many times (especially when I was in bloomington where the cyclist train for the Little 500 year round) I've been behind 2 cyclist that are taking up the

I don't think you can really motivate someone to stay healthy lol.

Yep. Can't stand reality TV. Terrible acting (and thus not "reality"), poor, poor, poor, (can't say it enough) plots. Centered around unrealistic and extremly overexaggerated drama. What makes me laugh about stuff like this is people criticize things like wrestling for not being real, and then watch reality TV and think it's real. Unbelieveable. Maybe if they called it "reality wrestling" everone would "know" that it's real.

I dunno, I liked what I saw in The Replacements. Just bring over a buncha dancers from *Katz

Wonder if Hensly is going to write the 5 year followup - "30 years later, Baltimore better off Colts, but 5 years after that, Ravens regret the Flacco contract."

I think we agree then, to some extent. I think we only really disagree on the priary objective. Maybe I'm missing something, but we'll see how this plays out, but right now, I'm not a fan of the changes. It has such the potential to go the wrong way.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but yes, the main objective is to get paid. Show me a union, and I'll show you a gropu of people who want to get paid. They are asking for medical benefits now, but that's because asking for pay is going too far too fast. If a group of people are unionizing, they aren't going to ask for the moon on day one. Unionize first and get the primary benefits of a union...that's the first step. Once the union is legitimized, then you ask for pay. It's coming, and I think if you don't see that coming, you've got this whole movement wrong. Again, not trying to

What was the trade?

Throw the BCS in there, my perspective on this whole thing changes and I'm behind it 100%

I get that, and I don't disagree with the policy behind it. But if you're going to go that route, then the NCAA shouldn't be able to make money off of your likeness either then. To me, the only way you make it fair is an all or nothing.

I feel the same way about him not being an ILB. He'd get so burned in coverage it's not even funny. And yeah, straight line rusher, absolutely. I think he could develop into a nice pass rusher with a good repertoire over time, possibly taking over full sam duties in the last year or two of Walden's contract, giving us the latitude to cut him if necessary.

Agree about the Sam backer bit, but I don't think he'd be a very strong pass rusher. Not initially at least. Has a tough time getting off blocks and needs to really improve his pass rush moves. He could develop into a good pass rusher though, even though he is limited by his length (which isn't to say he is doomed to be an average pass rusher). I dol ike his explosiveness though, which gives me hope that he could be a decent pass rusher.

As far as 3rd day prospects, Antone Exum. I think he could make a very good safety. One guy I hope we really take a look at.

Who wouldn't want to be seen on the jumbotron with a colts cheerleader on their lap and a disgusted wife staring at us with daggers in her eyes? That's going to go over well when I get home.

Yeah, I get what Pagano was saying, and I'm positive I'm probably reading into the subject headline too much - so I'll let that part of it go. Anyway, as for drafting a safety, I like Terrence Brooks as well. And if we hadn't taken a S or CB prospect by the fifth, I like Antone Exum. He's a little raw, and hasn't played S, but I think he projects better as a S than a CB. He would require a little work as far as technique goes, especially since he hasn't played S, but he's coachable (though rumor is that he does have an arrogance about him, hopefully that's not a terrible red flag). Pre

Exactly how I feel as well. All the students in extracurriculars - and tha'ts what football is too - that aren't on scholarship doing activities for the school, and they aren't getting paid for it, they don't get a scholarship, AND they owe student loans after they graduate. Yet, if this were some non-profit extra curricular team, this lawsuit woulda been shot down and not even made the news. But now, we got a few "privileged" kids, and all the sudden, everyone feels sorry for all the "indentured servitude." Gimme a break... The real kicker is what happens when these kids go on strike?

I do agree with you about this though. I hate the NCAA only permits a certain amount of signatures and that they can't make money of signing autographs - beyond stupid to me.

The way the law reads today will change tomorrow. If this unionization thing goes through, there isn't a doubt in my mind that he NCAA and colleges lobby to have scholarships for unionized players be considered taxable income. And it should. Every dollar that these kids try to squeeze out of the NCAA and colleges, is a dollar taken away from non-profitable collegiate sports. Because the schools aren't going to just accept this and let the profit margin go through the floor. That hurts everybody, including the unionized students. This whole thing reeks of pathetic.

Not to be overly critical, but your subject heading is misleading. The Pagano quote isn't saying "we'll try to draft one," it's just saying that "we'd like to get one." Huge difference. Biggest reason why it's different is, no coach would say they were trying to draft one unless it was for the purpose of throwing someone else off, misdirection if you will. Saying you'd like to get a safety means nothing. They'd like to get all sorts of positions. Doesnt' mean they are trying to get one.

Completely disagree. And in this draft, trading down makes a lot of sense. It obviously depends on who's available, but there is almost never a pick that isn't tradable - last one was probably 1st overall in the 2012 draft.

I tried telling my wife that one time, and I learned rather quickly my opinion don't mean ****

Well, to be fair, there's an awfully fine line between trusting your evaluation and reaching, and sometimes, teh only difference between the two is dependent on hindsight.

Yeah, he's definitely a project player, and I do like him as a late day 3 prospect. I'd have to watch more film on him to be convinced he'd go any higher (for what my opinion on the film may mean, if anything, lol), but admittedly, I haven't watched very much. To my understanding though, he could be a solid backup role player with an outside shot at starting, provided he does some of the things you say. One thing the scouting reports seem to have in common is his lateral agility, which may be what holds him back, but that could be a product of poor footwork.

Yeah, I don't see this train stopping at all. I just think testing it in the pre-season as lip service. We all know the league is good at that. Because quite frankly, if this went terribly in the first 2 pre-season games, it's not going to stop the leagues efforts one iota.

My thoughts exactly. His technique issues are coachable, and we have Thorton to play for the time being. I'd like to see Dozier work his way into the starting role sometime midseason, but as you know, gotta be patient with lineman. So I'm cool if he comes in in 2015 starting strong and confident.